|
|
A long time ago...
...In a message board realm long since dead, there were many boards and posters among SitePowerUp(SPU). One day, a poster rose from among them...SPORKBOT!
In the SPU, I was just an average Spork just tryin' to get by all the flamers and putzes. Now with SPU dead, and my own Batman message board dead LONG beforehand, I decided to build a FanBoy site, appeal to more than just the Dark Knight but also fans of other comics, movies, and cartoons.
Guess that's me in a nutshell. Feel free to e-mail your opinions, suggestions, and read some of my Beast Wars Fan-fiction. |
|
|
America Attacked...But United
I was in school when it happened. In my fourth hour people were frantic to watch the news. I asked why, and a classmate told me that the World Trade Center and Pentagon had been attacked.
Then I watched the footage.
I went online during lunch to check on some friends at a message board. I read posts that kept asking "why?" That was a good question. "So many people." One death was far too many. "This is going to lead to war." Perhaps. We waited for some New York dwelling posters to return, all of which did. Still, the questions and the anger were bouncing off the proverbial wall.
Over the next two days, I watched as the planes kepts crashing and crashing into those buildings. All those people, working to maintain their daily lives. Hundreds of others, with slit throats or told to call their families, telling them of the impending doom.
The terrorists took thousands with them on their kamekazi mission. That's when I remembered something a teacher told me. How some cultures believe that it is honorable to give your life for your country. There is nothing honorable about murdering thousands of men, woman and children. Mothers, fathers, husbands, wives, sons, duaghters, aunts, uncles, grandparents, they're all gone forever. There is no honor in that. That is cowardice.
By ordering passengers to call tell their families of their inevitible death and attacking those symbols of American acheivement, they no doubt inteded to scare Americans. They wanted us to fear them. They wanted to laugh as we fell, sobbing, to their whim. But this was not to be.
A few more days later America became even more united than in days passed. This was this Generation's Pearl Harbor. We have been penetrated. Attacked. Betrayed. America mourned. America united. America gave. America...got pissed. Taken unawares, people have done and are doing all that they can, giving blood, raising money. All the while, President George W. Bush has invigorated his nation. Americans are out for blood. We know who orchestrated the attack. Ossama bin Ladden.
We have been attacked. Our friends and families torn and taken. We have pushed forward. We have shown we are stronger than before. If history has proven one thing, is that in all the wars America has faced, we have always one. We have never turned away. We're always up for a good fight and never backed down. The terrorists will pay. They have escaped so far, but not for long. They cannoit escape our justice or the divine wrathful hand of God.
Come on, terrorists. Show yourselves. Bring it on. Face America. Fight like men, not mice. I dare you. Only know that you brought this upon yourselves.
You f*** with America, you pay.
Have I made myself clear?
SUVs: The Next Terrorist Scapegoat
Ever since the attacks of 9-11, America has gone through various kinds of change. People have become more patriotic, not to mention willing to place their lives on the line for other Americans and the fundamental American beliefs. We also realized the reality of the work fire fighters and police officers do to protect us and our way of life. Among others, another wind of change has engulfed the country...paranoia. Yes, the media tool oft used to sell papers and get ratings has struck again, this time attacking, of all things, Sports Utility Vehicles.
The ludicrous controversy over SUVs is needless and pathetic, as are the arguments supporting it. There are commercials that have been made to deliberately imitate the anti-marijuana ads, the ads that connected the purchase of pot to acts of terrorism. This was a weapon in a war against a destructive, harmful substance that has cost some people their lives. But current ads are claiming that gas-guzzling SUVs help fund acts of terror by U.S. enemies, that just filling up your SUV helps the terrorists hide from us and kill innocent people. Of course, by their logic, anyone with any kind of motor vehicle that requires gas to run is supporting terror, so, a good 4/5 of America, at least, is guilty of "helping bomb buildings."
But, I am no expert on the subject. An old-fashioned Internet search for more information, like our fore-fathers had done, was in order. First stop, www.thedetroitproject.com, by the Americans for Fuel Efficient Cars (AFEC). Not only does this waste of web space sport a GIF of an SUV driving, fading, then reappearing as small automatic weapon, it also has Arianna Huffington (columnist and author of "Picasso: Creator and Destroyer" and "The Female Woman" to name 2 of her 10 books according to http://www.ariannaonline.com/biography.html ), in the true fashion of a self-righteous nut job, explaining just how she ripped off the aforementioned anti-pot commercials "using" her "indignation" of the ads she claims were enabled by Bush (first I've heard of it), and has clips of the two ads at the bottom of the page. Indignation? What, does she APPROVE of people wasting their lives and money on destructive drugs? Then she concludes her shot piece of dung with a "call for help," or rather, a call for money to "support" her. Ugh.
Trying to avoid the vomiting, I head to http://pub1.ezboard.com/framblinirishmanmessageboardebatesection.showMessage?topicID=508.topic. There, I find a beacon of common sense from Elji Winters EV, who gives a pretty good analogy on the subject. There are replies to his statements, many of which make much relevant sense. Thank you, God, not all your kids are morons!
Next, I venture to http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/0114SUV-Campaign-ON.html, which details how celebrities, such as Gwyneth Paltrow and Barbara Streisand, support the fight against SUVs, but drive or own them themselves. Hypocritical celebrities...imagine that.
Merrily I click my way to back to the Detroit Project website, incidentally (http://aria8.vwh.net/suv/readmore/today_121702.htm), but now to an interview from the Today Show (8 days before Christmas '02) with Huffington and Csaba Csere, who doesn't agree with AFEC's ads (ooooh!). I liked how Csere explained the facts about where the gas money goes, citing that only 12% of the money we use for fuel goes to allegedly terrorist-funding countries. Ever feel happy, but nauseous at the same time? This is how this transcript made me feel.
Finally, I head to http://www.azstarnet.com/star/sat/30111Portillo.html, the Arizona Daily Star site. Reporter Ernesto Portillo Jr. admits to having an SUV, and dares someone to hang him for it. His article was intelligent, informative, and entertaining. Kudos, Ernesto, kudos.
All in all during my search, I found more SUV supporters than I anticipated. They spoke their minds with intellect and common sense. Most of the stupidity and mud-slinging came from people such as Arianna Huffington. People like her use people's fears and paranoia to trick them into taking their side, and demonize those who do not support their ways. She stopped short of having someone in front of a Chevy Suburban proclaim "I drive an SUV" and then bite the head off a kitten. She claims to only have done what Bush's administration had done on the war on drugs, but she didn't really back up how a battle on weed was bad (as she implied, I think, seeing as how she was so repulsed by it).
In conclusion, people opposing further use of Sport Utility Vehicles make less sense and induce more vomiting in me than those who say SUV users are no worse than anyone that uses fuel. There are vehicles that use much more fuel than SUVs...why not go on the lunatic fringe on them instead? Why not make it easier, and whine to everyone that uses fuel to power anything that they had a part in 9/11? Granted they'll no doubt get a lot of deserved black eyes and kicks in their collective asses, but hey, why not? True, SUVs do turn over (though my Mother's Yukon never has) and can be dangerous, but you don't cease making them and destroy the ones in use. You upgrade the safety features; make it a better vehicle. If not, why stop at cars? Why not wipe out a couple of pesty species? I mean, what do flies really do for us? Personally, I think some people are mostly offended by the superior size of SUVs to most other cars, making the drivers of smaller cars feel inferior (and as a result, assuming the SUV drivers consider themselves kings of the roadways). That would then lead to them becoming hostile towards SUVs, and seeking to make their lives easier by eliminating them altogether. But that is just me. Arianna Huffington sounds self-righteous and a little fascist, and she fails to make a convincing point. She also fails to see that many people need Sports Utility Vehicles, or they probably would not drive them. How she got to be so influential is beyond me.
The Iraq Conflict:
"Anti-Americans, Just Plain Stupid?"
-or-
"It's Not the Dark Side...The Light Bulb Just Burnt Out"
Saddam Hussein has been a dictator in Iraq for over twenty years. In that time, he's been known to have dangerous weapons and used some against his own people. A man so harmful shouldn't be allowed in power. Or did people NOT pick that up from World War II? Since Saddam is known as a madman, why is it that when Coalition Forces fought to take him out of power, people in the US, in other countries, and even in so-called allied countries hate the States for taking action? Do they see a more moral solution that they're not telling anyone? Are they just hardcore peace-lovers that think ANY violence is wrong no matter what? Or are some of them just drones going along with the crowd so as to not look like war-mongering monsters?
Firstly, how did all this start? The easiest answer might be that the US, then led by George Bush Sr., got involved in 1991. As the Iraq Resource Information Site (http://www.geocities.com/iraqinfo/index.html?page=/iraqinfo/gulfwar/overview.html) tells, the US was only concerned about its oil interests in Iraq and leaving Israel as the superpower of that region. Since that site is from the "Iraqi perspective," it could be biased. Sure sounds the part. On the other hand, Inforplease.com (http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0001293.html) sees things differently. Bush sends troops to Saudi Arabia (at its request) for its protection. A Jan. 15, 1991 deadline is set for Iraq to withdraw. After US air assault and an ultimatum for Iraq to back off from Kuwait (which was rejected), the ground war starts. After four days, United States and Coalition troops break through Iraq defenses and take Hussein's troops down. By March 3rd, leaders on both sides meet to discuss an end to the war. Iraq agrees to abide by ALL United Nations resolutions; a day later, POWs are released and on April 6th, the official cease fire is signed. In the eight month ordeal and out of 532,000 soldiers, 467 were wounded, 148 were killed in battle, and 145 were killed off-battle.
Now we've a different president leading us, and people have seemingly gotten used to the 9-11 tragedy. While still searching for the leaders of the Taliban and Al-Qaeda, the U.S. demanded to investigate Iraq's weapons in early May of 2002. As the timeline at BBC News site (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2167933.stm)explains, it wasn't until September 16th of that year Iraq sent a letter allowing the return of inspectors. Backed by Congress, George W. Bush is authorized to use force against Iraq in October. Two weeks after that, the US proposes new resolutions for Iraq to the UN, which Saddam is willing to accept as long as it is not a tool for a US attack. Though parliament rejected the new resolution (1441), Iraq's government accepts it in mid-November, and Hans Blix is sent to check Iraq for any weapons they aren't supposed to have.
Secretary of State Colin Powell, in February 2003, went before the U.N. Security Council with evidence of Iraq's violations (Bush stated that Saddam defied 17 disarmament resolutions). Evidence which, as I saw on FOX News, Iraq said were lies before Powell even presented his case. The violations consist (as http://www.newsandobserver.com/front/digest/story/2174510p-2060243c.html states) of satellite photos of biological, chemical, and missile facilities, recordings of Iraqi military officers discussing how to deceive the U.N., keeping key materials and people away from inspectors, production of 25,000 liters of anthrax, as well as links between Iraqi officials and Al-Qaeda operatives since 9-11. Though Iraq wasn't part of the Security Council, a representative was allowed to hear the evidence, though he of course dismissed them as false. Meanwhile, Ossama Bin Laden sent more tapes to the U.S., claiming and demanding of his people to attack the States should it invade Iraq.
And then it came to war. Saddam was too stubborn to let a real investigation be carried out. He was even given the chance to take his two sons and get out of Iraq, but the three decided to stay. Coalition troops were sent to Iraq and the attack began Wednesday, March 19 (as I gathered from http://nl.newsbank.com/nl-search/we/Archives?p_action=list&p_topdoc=11, the 16th article among 67 in the results of my search). News coverage since then has been non-stop. Loyalists to Saddam fought, surrendered, or were defeated by forces from the U.S., Britain, and some from Australia. There have, unfortunately, been casualties on our side, many heartbroken families of their children falling in battle. Battles raged, cannons fired, and bombs dropped. Then on Tuesday, April 4th, a restaurant Saddam and his sons were allegedly in was bombed, and there was no word from the trio until recently (and MOST recently, Saddam's sons were killed. HUZZAH! Two fewer killers/torturer/rapists in the world). Troops over took the city of Baghdad, where the dictator had kept himself. Whether alive or dead, that didn't stop U.S. troops and Iraqi citizens from toppling, beating, and otherwise destroying statues of Hussein in Baghdad. The fighting isn't over, but many speculate that the war is.
From day one of George W. Bush's face-off with Iraq, he has come under much fire as a war-monger and even a lunatic. I supported his decision and especially the troops that carry it out. Not because I have Republican leanings or that I love violence. I support him because he's got a point. Saddam is murderous, he's insane, and he's let his kids run wild (his assassination attempt on one notwithstanding). He's killed thousands of his own people for weapons testing or for opposing him. Why the Hell should he be in power? As Bill O'Reilly has said, "the only difference between Saddam and Hitler is the mustache."
How can anyone in their right minds NOT support an action that would remove a psychopath from power and spare the lives of the Iraqi people? First off, most people want swift action in their favor, and tend not to fully think things through. They oppose the war and say Saddam isn't a threat because they hate Bush, enough to lie and disagree with him at all costs. They find or make up reasons not to like him. Did he drink and drive? Bush admitted it, but also stated he hasn't had alcohol in decades. Did he do crack in college? Maybe, but around that time, no one really knew how harmful it was/is, so A LOT of people did it, too. The important thing is that he doesn't use it now. People will even point out how he's mispronounced words. Who in God's name HASN'T mispronounced in their history of coherent speech? He's bloody human. Troops are fighting a madman, and you're concerned about how a guy speaks? People say he wasn't elected and Gore won the popularity vote. If High School taught me ANYTHING, it's that the most popular person is often a pompous ass that doesn't deserve power of any kind. Also, Gore conceded; you want to complain to someone about Bush being president? Look up Al Gore and give him a holler. I've gone into a few anti-Bush chat rooms (all with the same basic title, Impeach "idiot" or "war-monger" or "psychotic" Bush, all by the same guy, I'm sure) where people say the dumbest things. Bush kills innocent people, he met with the 9/11 attackers, he wanted 9/11 to happen...all bull-dink. One man, claiming to be a WWII or Vietnam veteran, claimed that Bush ordered thousands of sorties (bombing missions) over Iraq since...get this...1998. I found this "fact" rather fascinating. Does the CURRENT Governor of Texas know HE can order international attacks without Congressional consent? It's ridiculous what people will come up with just to maintain their hatred. And they're too ignorant to find out that NO President can make ANY action with Congress' say so or that impeachment is a TRIAL of a Commander in Chief's wrong doings, not the actual expulsion from the position.
Understandably, some people just don't want war. There are those that are scared that they or their children will be killed in battle, so they rally against it. They can do this as it's their right as citizen of the U.S. It all depends on how they go about it. If they're against the war, they shouldn't get too violent in relaying their message. Some have had to be arrested for getting out of control. There are those, though, that genuinely think that going to war wasn't a smart move. They think that there was an unused option or two that could have spared the loss of life. These people could be right, but where were they when diplomacy failed? People think they have the solution, but don't take action to make it happen. In this sense, they only have themselves to blame. They'll spout out that this decision was bad or how big a mistake that move was, but they don't bother involving themselves politically beyond that. All they do is complain, and expect things to magically go their way. It's people like that who need a good flail in the face.
In the end, it really comes down to who can be trusted more: George W. Bush, who got the Presidency because his opponent gave up, or Saddam Hussein, a homicidal nut job who has stayed in power for over twenty years, won't let his scientists speak freely, and lets his kids rape and kill as they please? His turbulent life aside, Bush hasn't given any reason not to trust him, has he (if I'm wrong, prove it to me in a calm, concise, mature manner)? People got the wrong idea about him because his father was President and that he's done things not everyone agrees on. People looked to him for guidance after 9/11, and he gave it. It was a few months before people could get back into the swing of mocking him for no reason again, but the American people managed. Saddam has been known for nothing BUT causing pain and agony. People say he's not Hitler. They may be right, but the similarities are astonishing. Both are murderous, use fear to gain power, and like Hitler to Charley Chaplin, Saddam seems to have stolen Tom Selleck's mustache. I don't pretend to know more about people or the war than most others, but I've heard enough reports and read enough opinions to know that the most intelligent arguments are for the troops fighting, for Bush's decision, and for the removal of Saddam. The least convincing people, those against Bush and his actions, all whine and complain and lie and can't back up their facts worth a darn. Coincidence? Perhaps, perhaps not. The pro-war people may just be better educated and know more about the situation than those opposed to the fighting. All I know is that those who forget the past shall repeat it. People seem to be rapidly forgetting 9/11. I for one won't support just ignoring a problem like Saddam.
Even though the conflict in Iraq is over for the most part, people still think it was a mistake to go in. Well, all the complaining isn't going to turn back time and make it like nothing happened. In one of the shortest wars in history, Saddam and his kin ran away, the latter killed, the regime has crumbled, and the U.S. is prepared to help get Iraq back on its feet. So what are we supposed to do now?
I'm not so arrogant as to think that people should think or do as I would, but it really bugs me that people that are or can be SO intelligent opposed this conflict for all the wrong reasons, or merely couldn't back up their arguments. Firstly, there are numerous "anti-Bushers" I've encountered in chat rooms. They didn't agree with the war because it was "Bush's idea." Right. Not that Resolution 1441 had ANYTHING to do with it. Or Saddam's reputation as a nutcase. Bush must've woke up one day and thought, "Y'know, I don't like how Iraq has a 'q' without a 'u' after it. I think I'll blow it up." People tend to think that he didn't try any diplomacy at all. He asked to send inspectors and was denied for months. He waited many more months before delivering an ultimatum. He didn't go into Iraq with guns blazing, even though he could have. He had approval to use force long before force was initiated. You can't say Bush wasn't a patient man.
Micheal Moore claimed that we were sent to war for "fictitious reasons" by a "fictitiously elected" President. He thinks (as his rant on his site claimed) that Bush and his administration use fear to keep the majority of peace-lovers quite. He, of course, doesn't explain HOW they do this or how anything was "ficticious" (his favorite word). Perhaps Moore is assuming more people agree than oppose his view because, after his Oscar rant, his "Bowling for Columbine" film increased in sales and his book "Stupid White People" has spent time on the New York Times bestseller list for 50 weeks. I'm sure that if he interviewed EVERYONE who saw his documentary or read his book, he'd get many people that saw his view, and just didn't agree with it. But since people aren't going out on T.V. and telling Moore how smart he is, it must be Bush's fault, and he's scaring people into shutting up. But that aside, how can he say that Saddam's threat is fictitious? Or that the very suspicion he and his regime gave because of their lack of cooperation wasn't real? He makes all these claims, but not only does he fail to back them up, but also displays his opinion arrogantly and egotistically. He doesn't even consider that he could be wrong in some way. When someone sounds so pompous and superior, I find it hard to take them seriously.
As the FOX News site tells, even some Iraqis who wanted Saddam out of power now want the US out of the country. Some of this feeling, according to Dr. Mowaffak Al-Rubaie, (http://www.foxmarketwire.com/story/0,2933,84448,00.html) is a result of the lack of law and order and the lack of humanitarian aid. It has also been said that some Iraqis fear that they will now be ruled by America. Of course, this was never the plan. It has constantly been said that the U.S. plans to help rebuild Iraq, not to govern it. There's an obvious difference between the two.
The Dixie Chicks have given their voice, people think, but they were misinterpreted. The lead singer said at a concert that she was ashamed of being from the same state as the Commander-in-Chief. Her comments resulted in fans mocking them, calling them unsavory things, as well as destroying their albums. One person even used photo-manipulation software to make one of the "Chicks" look cozy with Saddam Hussein. Later, they elaborated that they in no way defended Saddam or bashed the troops, and apologized for the remark, stating that whoever is in office deserves respect. This wasn't too big a surprise; they are celebrities, and people tend to read too much into what they say, especially if they write for a tabloid. This is where many Americans conveniently forget the Freedom of Speech; when someone says something they do not like. Were the comments of that concert mocking the President? Yes, but sketch comedy shows (MADtv, Saturday Night Live) have been doing so for years, especially where George W. Bush is concerned. They never said they did not support the troops, though, I think people did overreact to what they said. 'Course, I also think it wasn't a great idea do the cover of Entertainment Weekly in the nude. They say it wasn't "about the nakedness", but I question if they considered if people would understand that.
All in all, no one side of the issue is %100 right or wrong. Was war the only option? If not, a lot of people were either keeping their mouths shut or sitting on their collective asses doing nothing for a long time. People do and say what they feel is best, sometimes, but other people are just hateful and often fascist without knowing it, and blow things out of proportion. This is the land of the free, but also home of the brave. People shouldn't be afraid to voice their opinion on the conflict, but they should take the time to seriously and logically think the matter through. Bush took his sweet time going into Iraq, believe it or not. The least the American public can do is take ITS time in choosing a position. Study, learn, THEN decide. That is the intelligent way to go. Perhaps the reason so many people I've met online who oppose the war and sound so silly and ridiculous is because they jumped the gun on their decision, and are too stubborn to change their minds. THAT is foolish, stupid, and childish. People are constantly asking "Where are the WMDs?" Good question. But here's a good FACT...in the Gulf War, back when Bush Sr was in office...we KNEW Saddam had these weapons. And now that we're looking for them, we can't find them. I'm sure somehow that's Bush's fault. 'Cause, y'know...he's breathing and all. It's like Tommy Lee Jones said in the first Men in Black movie: A person is smart, but people are paniky, stupid animals (I'm paraphrasing). You'd be surprised how often this is true.
But that's just one American's feelings...right?
|
|
|
